"Smaller government" advocates

[kaz]

Making shit up is a great way to argue. That's just vacuous crap

Is it crap?

The US Health Care System Is Fundamentally Flawed

"Overall, Americans also pay 50 percent more than other countries for identical drugs, as a result of laws and regulations preventing the US government from reining in drug prices like other nations do"

"While the US makes up only five percent of the world's population, Americans consume over 50 percent of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs"

So, why does it cost you twice as much for drugs as people in other countries? And why do Americans use half of all of those drugs? Are you seriously suggesting that this is good for your wallet?

"A review of US healthcare expenses by the Institutes of Medicine3 (IOM) revealed that 30 cents of every dollar spent on medical care is wasted, adding up to $750 billion annually. For perspective, the defense budget proposed by the Pentagon for 2014 was just under $527 billion."

30 cents of every dollar is WASTED.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"Under the fee-for-service structure, health care providers (doctors, hospitals, specialists, and so on) are trusted to determine the appropriate levels of care, and then trusted to bill the insurer for the services they perform."

"Most significant cases of corruption have involved medical professionals, providers and corporations in the health care delivery supply chain."

MMS: Error

"In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums. "

"Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public and private insurance overhead totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total health care expenditures in the United States, or $259 per capita "

So, 6% of what is spent on healthcare goes to the profit of the insurance companies.

"The average U.S. hospital devoted 24.3 percent of spending to administration. "

So, of the money that makes it to the hospitals, 25% goes on administration, probably a lot of this administration is completely unnecessary and is needed to deal with the insurance companies in the first place.

"Hospital administration consumed $87.6 billion, or $315 per capita (Table 1). In Canada, hospital administration cost $3.1 billion — 12.9 percent of hospital spending, or $103 per capita."

This is THREE TIMES more than is spent in Canada. So we could assume that $60 billion is going on unnecessary administration.

So that's about $460 dollars per capita that goes on unnecessary admin and profit for insurance companies.



There's so much stuff going on, and for some reason, the people who complain the most about things costing too much are the ones who ignore how much more private health costs than public health in other countries.

LOL, so when I say we have a government controlled monstrosity for a healthcare system, you refute me by blasting the system. Classic. And you didn't address the ridiculous position that you think the solution to a government controlled wasteful, expensive system is for the entity fucking it up, government, to take it over. Can't make it up.

Actually, the solution is to move towards free markets. Obamacare is the completely wrong direction. Health insurance should be like other insurance, it should protect you from catastrophic losses. Rather ObamaCARE moves us towards managed care where people get for free that which they should most pay for themselves, tat which they can afford.

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

 

[kaz]

The US healthcare system is already government controlled from beginning to end. The idea there is anything free market about our healthcare system is just ignorance. So the solution to government generated waste is government taking it over. Yeah....

Well, that's because it's healthcare. The problem is the healthcare system is not separated. It should have private completely separate from public healthcare. If you want private, you pay for it, if not, there are state hospitals. So many people are on the take simply because it's almost impossible to stop the corruption.

Stop the corruption by giving it to government. Keep repeating that, it cracks me up. Wow, what a sheep. You see what you want to see. Governments have destroyed healthcare systems across the world and our government is destroying our healthcare system and Obamacare is making our crappy system far more expensive. Your solution? Give it to government to ... wait for it ... fix it. Wow.

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

Learn about free markets, Holmes. We don't have one in medical care, which is why that corruption exists. That is created by government, not solved by it.

I will help you out though and run around in circles though for a while and scream like my hair is on fire, OMG! OMG! Companies are making a profit! OMG! OMG!

Prove it.

You know nothing about the health care industry and nothing about economics other than the Communist Manifesto as explained to you by Democrats. How is that possible? You want libertarian talking pints that would persuade you the Democrat talking points are wrong?

I will give you a shot though. When you get an oil change, do you send a bill to your insurance company? Isn't it in their interest to keep your car running? Yet you don't, why not?

If you grasp the question and how it relates to that what we have is not medical insurance but medical care in this country and why that's a terrible approach to getting medical care, then I'll take you seriously. So?

 

[kaz]

Okay, and, the government gets their medical care systems ripped off just like private insurance. The difference is that private insurance has investigators to look into suspicious activity whereas it's usually overlooked by government.

I don't know if that still takes place. Under Commie Care, insurance companies were forced into spending 80% of their premium money on medical payments alone. What they used to do is have investigations and use that money for investments so that the profits would help offset some of the costs.

I understand that. Medicare is an unnecessary system that is part of this private/public health system. It wouldn't happen under a purely public system, because they'd be no way of ripping anything off.

That's not to say that waste doesn't happen in a public system, it just means it's a lot less.

Then why isn't it a lot less now even with private insurance????

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

You said a public system wouldn't be getting ripped off. Medicare and Medicaid are public systems, and they get ripped off by the billions every year.

Because it's not a truly public system, it's public money, but private firms, as opposed to other health systems where it is just the health system, no other companies on the take.

The US is a private system with half public money, this is where the problem lies.

The problem lies in the lack of a free market in medical care, government is the problem, not the solution.

You don't grasp that being free market does not mean being on the side of companies, do you? It's actually quite the reverse, you are not pro-any side in supporting free markets, you are pro-choice. You have to move away from the paradigm which is complete bull that the opposite of your government love is company love, the opposite of your government love is choice love, and again, free markets are pro-choice

 

[kaz]

Stop the corruption by giving it to government. Keep repeating that, it cracks me up. Wow, what a sheep. You see what you want to see. Governments have destroyed healthcare systems across the world and our government is destroying our healthcare system and Obamacare is making our crappy system far more expensive. Your solution? Give it to government to ... wait for it ... fix it. Wow.

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

In the late 70's and 80's, I worked in home medical equipment which entailed billing and guidelines for medical equipment.

We used to buy an aluminum walker for let's say $30.00. We would rent that walker to patients on Medicare, Medicaid and even private insurance for $20.00 a month. Some patients would use the walker for a few months, and others would use it for several years.

We weren't doing anything wrong or illegal. We were using the limitations set up by the government. They would rent medical equipment until the day the patient died.

Private insurance on the other hand did things differently. If the prognosis was that the patient needed that equipment for a long time or even life, they would buy that equipment off of us instead of renting it.

In most cases, the equipment we purchased paid for itself in two to four months depending on the equipment. But it wasn't just walkers. We rented: hospital beds, hospital mattresses, portable commodes, oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, trapeze's, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes...

Our company made a killing on government, and when the patient no longer needed the equipment, we just cleaned it up and rented it to another government patient. There were and still are thousands of those companies across the US.

Not doing anything wrong. Well, in the age of legitimate corruption you weren't breaking the law. Doing anything wrong, well.... you were screwing over the system, you were screwing over tax payers. You were an unnecessary cog in a system that didn't need to be there. Who wouldn't try and make money where they can make money? I'm not saying you're a bad person, as you say, the govt set up a bad system that allowed corruption as legitimate business.

In the UK, your business wouldn't exist. The govt would buy this equipment, so wouldn't need to rent it out.

This is the problem. The right say it needs to be private, they make systems which are private, but then many people miss out, so the govt goes in and sets things up to make sure poorer people get private stuff, and that's where the problems lie.

Without medicare and all of that, the UK does fine. It merely has the stuff it needs and gives it to those who need it. It doesn't make huge profits for people who are unnecessary.

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I agree. But why don't you like the Democrats since you keep advocating what they do?

 

[kaz]

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

In the late 70's and 80's, I worked in home medical equipment which entailed billing and guidelines for medical equipment.

We used to buy an aluminum walker for let's say $30.00. We would rent that walker to patients on Medicare, Medicaid and even private insurance for $20.00 a month. Some patients would use the walker for a few months, and others would use it for several years.

We weren't doing anything wrong or illegal. We were using the limitations set up by the government. They would rent medical equipment until the day the patient died.

Private insurance on the other hand did things differently. If the prognosis was that the patient needed that equipment for a long time or even life, they would buy that equipment off of us instead of renting it.

In most cases, the equipment we purchased paid for itself in two to four months depending on the equipment. But it wasn't just walkers. We rented: hospital beds, hospital mattresses, portable commodes, oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, trapeze's, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes...

Our company made a killing on government, and when the patient no longer needed the equipment, we just cleaned it up and rented it to another government patient. There were and still are thousands of those companies across the US.

Not doing anything wrong. Well, in the age of legitimate corruption you weren't breaking the law. Doing anything wrong, well.... you were screwing over the system, you were screwing over tax payers. You were an unnecessary cog in a system that didn't need to be there. Who wouldn't try and make money where they can make money? I'm not saying you're a bad person, as you say, the govt set up a bad system that allowed corruption as legitimate business.

In the UK, your business wouldn't exist. The govt would buy this equipment, so wouldn't need to rent it out.

This is the problem. The right say it needs to be private, they make systems which are private, but then many people miss out, so the govt goes in and sets things up to make sure poorer people get private stuff, and that's where the problems lie.

Without medicare and all of that, the UK does fine. It merely has the stuff it needs and gives it to those who need it. It doesn't make huge profits for people who are unnecessary.

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it crap?

The US Health Care System Is Fundamentally Flawed

"Overall, Americans also pay 50 percent more than other countries for identical drugs, as a result of laws and regulations preventing the US government from reining in drug prices like other nations do"

"While the US makes up only five percent of the world's population, Americans consume over 50 percent of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs"

So, why does it cost you twice as much for drugs as people in other countries? And why do Americans use half of all of those drugs? Are you seriously suggesting that this is good for your wallet?

"A review of US healthcare expenses by the Institutes of Medicine3 (IOM) revealed that 30 cents of every dollar spent on medical care is wasted, adding up to $750 billion annually. For perspective, the defense budget proposed by the Pentagon for 2014 was just under $527 billion."

30 cents of every dollar is WASTED.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"Under the fee-for-service structure, health care providers (doctors, hospitals, specialists, and so on) are trusted to determine the appropriate levels of care, and then trusted to bill the insurer for the services they perform."

"Most significant cases of corruption have involved medical professionals, providers and corporations in the health care delivery supply chain."

MMS: Error

"In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums. "

"Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public and private insurance overhead totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total health care expenditures in the United States, or $259 per capita "

So, 6% of what is spent on healthcare goes to the profit of the insurance companies.

"The average U.S. hospital devoted 24.3 percent of spending to administration. "

So, of the money that makes it to the hospitals, 25% goes on administration, probably a lot of this administration is completely unnecessary and is needed to deal with the insurance companies in the first place.

"Hospital administration consumed $87.6 billion, or $315 per capita (Table 1). In Canada, hospital administration cost $3.1 billion — 12.9 percent of hospital spending, or $103 per capita."

This is THREE TIMES more than is spent in Canada. So we could assume that $60 billion is going on unnecessary administration.

So that's about $460 dollars per capita that goes on unnecessary admin and profit for insurance companies.



There's so much stuff going on, and for some reason, the people who complain the most about things costing too much are the ones who ignore how much more private health costs than public health in other countries.

LOL, so when I say we have a government controlled monstrosity for a healthcare system, you refute me by blasting the system. Classic. And you didn't address the ridiculous position that you think the solution to a government controlled wasteful, expensive system is for the entity fucking it up, government, to take it over. Can't make it up.

Actually, the solution is to move towards free markets. Obamacare is the completely wrong direction. Health insurance should be like other insurance, it should protect you from catastrophic losses. Rather ObamaCARE moves us towards managed care where people get for free that which they should most pay for themselves, tat which they can afford.

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

Really, as if this is the only scenario that happens in capitalism. Actually what happens is companies get themselves into a position where they don't need to compete with other, by having monopolies and the like, and then do all the corruption they like.

Europe charges Microsoft with abuse of monopoly again

If capitalism is so great, then why did Microsoft get charged with abuse of monoploy. Surely under your "nothing bad happens in capitalism" this wouldn't happen.

The Ten Largest Global Business Corruption Cases

Oh, and these companies didn't engage in corruption either.

In the US you don't even need to "bribe" government officials, you just put money into their super PACs and all that "legitimate nonsense".

Corruption happens all over. People have something to offer, some opportunity, another company wants it, so they'll make sure they get it by flashing the cash and making sure some people get rich out of it.

Without governments, monopolies would be a major, MAJOR part of everyone's lives. There'd probably be only a few controlling everything. With Microsoft they had to try and keep things separate because otherwise no other company would ever stand a chance and Microsoft would control it all, meaning that they wouldn't need to compete.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

In the late 70's and 80's, I worked in home medical equipment which entailed billing and guidelines for medical equipment.

We used to buy an aluminum walker for let's say $30.00. We would rent that walker to patients on Medicare, Medicaid and even private insurance for $20.00 a month. Some patients would use the walker for a few months, and others would use it for several years.

We weren't doing anything wrong or illegal. We were using the limitations set up by the government. They would rent medical equipment until the day the patient died.

Private insurance on the other hand did things differently. If the prognosis was that the patient needed that equipment for a long time or even life, they would buy that equipment off of us instead of renting it.

In most cases, the equipment we purchased paid for itself in two to four months depending on the equipment. But it wasn't just walkers. We rented: hospital beds, hospital mattresses, portable commodes, oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, trapeze's, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes...

Our company made a killing on government, and when the patient no longer needed the equipment, we just cleaned it up and rented it to another government patient. There were and still are thousands of those companies across the US.

Not doing anything wrong. Well, in the age of legitimate corruption you weren't breaking the law. Doing anything wrong, well.... you were screwing over the system, you were screwing over tax payers. You were an unnecessary cog in a system that didn't need to be there. Who wouldn't try and make money where they can make money? I'm not saying you're a bad person, as you say, the govt set up a bad system that allowed corruption as legitimate business.

In the UK, your business wouldn't exist. The govt would buy this equipment, so wouldn't need to rent it out.

This is the problem. The right say it needs to be private, they make systems which are private, but then many people miss out, so the govt goes in and sets things up to make sure poorer people get private stuff, and that's where the problems lie.

Without medicare and all of that, the UK does fine. It merely has the stuff it needs and gives it to those who need it. It doesn't make huge profits for people who are unnecessary.

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I agree. But why don't you like the Democrats since you keep advocating what they do?

Well, maybe if you could comprehend things that are a little more complicated than this team nonsense, then maybe you'd understand, but to be honest you're so into this whole politics team game, I don't think you even want to understand.

 

[kaz]

LOL, so when I say we have a government controlled monstrosity for a healthcare system, you refute me by blasting the system. Classic. And you didn't address the ridiculous position that you think the solution to a government controlled wasteful, expensive system is for the entity fucking it up, government, to take it over. Can't make it up.

Actually, the solution is to move towards free markets. Obamacare is the completely wrong direction. Health insurance should be like other insurance, it should protect you from catastrophic losses. Rather ObamaCARE moves us towards managed care where people get for free that which they should most pay for themselves, tat which they can afford.

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

Really, as if this is the only scenario that happens in capitalism. Actually what happens is companies get themselves into a position where they don't need to compete with other, by having monopolies and the like, and then do all the corruption they like.

Europe charges Microsoft with abuse of monopoly again

If capitalism is so great, then why did Microsoft get charged with abuse of monoploy. Surely under your "nothing bad happens in capitalism" this wouldn't happen.

The Ten Largest Global Business Corruption Cases

Oh, and these companies didn't engage in corruption either.

In the US you don't even need to "bribe" government officials, you just put money into their super PACs and all that "legitimate nonsense".

Corruption happens all over. People have something to offer, some opportunity, another company wants it, so they'll make sure they get it by flashing the cash and making sure some people get rich out of it.

Without governments, monopolies would be a major, MAJOR part of everyone's lives. There'd probably be only a few controlling everything. With Microsoft they had to try and keep things separate because otherwise no other company would ever stand a chance and Microsoft would control it all, meaning that they wouldn't need to compete.

So you only buy the best product at the best price sometimes? You don't always do that? Can you give me some examples of when you don't do that so I know where capitalism doesn't work?

As for monopolies, having the best product for the best price only works as long as you maintain that, once someone builds a better mousetrap you lose that monopoly. Well, except when government enforces monopolies. Only government can use force to make us pick a product which is not the best product at the best price.

Well, not you of course since you don't always pick the best product at the best price, but for the rest of us who do

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, that's because it's healthcare. The problem is the healthcare system is not separated. It should have private completely separate from public healthcare. If you want private, you pay for it, if not, there are state hospitals. So many people are on the take simply because it's almost impossible to stop the corruption.

Stop the corruption by giving it to government. Keep repeating that, it cracks me up. Wow, what a sheep. You see what you want to see. Governments have destroyed healthcare systems across the world and our government is destroying our healthcare system and Obamacare is making our crappy system far more expensive. Your solution? Give it to government to ... wait for it ... fix it. Wow.

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

Learn about free markets, Holmes. We don't have one in medical care, which is why that corruption exists. That is created by government, not solved by it.

I will help you out though and run around in circles though for a while and scream like my hair is on fire, OMG! OMG! Companies are making a profit! OMG! OMG!

Prove it.

You know nothing about the health care industry and nothing about economics other than the Communist Manifesto as explained to you by Democrats. How is that possible? You want libertarian talking pints that would persuade you the Democrat talking points are wrong?

I will give you a shot though. When you get an oil change, do you send a bill to your insurance company? Isn't it in their interest to keep your car running? Yet you don't, why not?

If you grasp the question and how it relates to that what we have is not medical insurance but medical care in this country and why that's a terrible approach to getting medical care, then I'll take you seriously. So?

You pretend you know me. To be honest, people who just attack are generally people who don't have much of an argument. Your argument is floating around in the air it's so light, I'm done with this conversation, you're boring me. If I wanted such a conversation, I'd go to kindergarten.

 

[MarcATL]

Nothing is so expensive as that which government provides for free

No, you're wrong.

The US system costs twice the percentage of GDP as the British system.

The US system sees about 30% go on corruption. Plus you have to add on the profits made by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other middle men who are completely unnecessary, and you're looking at about 45% or 50% just being wasted and not going on health at all, maybe more.

So, the UK govt can provide something for half the price, make it all inclusive at that, and do a better job than the private sector manages in the US.

The US healthcare system is already government controlled from beginning to end. The idea there is anything free market about our healthcare system is just ignorance. So the solution to government generated waste is government taking it over. Yeah....

Well, that's because it's healthcare. The problem is the healthcare system is not separated. It should have private completely separate from public healthcare. If you want private, you pay for it, if not, there are state hospitals. So many people are on the take simply because it's almost impossible to stop the corruption.

Stop the corruption by giving it to government. Keep repeating that, it cracks me up. Wow, what a sheep. You see what you want to see. Governments have destroyed healthcare systems across the world and our government is destroying our healthcare system and Obamacare is making our crappy system far more expensive. Your solution? Give it to government to ... wait for it ... fix it. Wow.

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

Exactly.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

In the late 70's and 80's, I worked in home medical equipment which entailed billing and guidelines for medical equipment.

We used to buy an aluminum walker for let's say $30.00. We would rent that walker to patients on Medicare, Medicaid and even private insurance for $20.00 a month. Some patients would use the walker for a few months, and others would use it for several years.

We weren't doing anything wrong or illegal. We were using the limitations set up by the government. They would rent medical equipment until the day the patient died.

Private insurance on the other hand did things differently. If the prognosis was that the patient needed that equipment for a long time or even life, they would buy that equipment off of us instead of renting it.

In most cases, the equipment we purchased paid for itself in two to four months depending on the equipment. But it wasn't just walkers. We rented: hospital beds, hospital mattresses, portable commodes, oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, trapeze's, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes...

Our company made a killing on government, and when the patient no longer needed the equipment, we just cleaned it up and rented it to another government patient. There were and still are thousands of those companies across the US.

Not doing anything wrong. Well, in the age of legitimate corruption you weren't breaking the law. Doing anything wrong, well.... you were screwing over the system, you were screwing over tax payers. You were an unnecessary cog in a system that didn't need to be there. Who wouldn't try and make money where they can make money? I'm not saying you're a bad person, as you say, the govt set up a bad system that allowed corruption as legitimate business.

In the UK, your business wouldn't exist. The govt would buy this equipment, so wouldn't need to rent it out.

This is the problem. The right say it needs to be private, they make systems which are private, but then many people miss out, so the govt goes in and sets things up to make sure poorer people get private stuff, and that's where the problems lie.

Without medicare and all of that, the UK does fine. It merely has the stuff it needs and gives it to those who need it. It doesn't make huge profits for people who are unnecessary.

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I agree. But why don't you like the Democrats since you keep advocating what they do?

Well, maybe if you could comprehend things that are a little more complicated than this team nonsense, then maybe you'd understand, but to be honest you're so into this whole politics team game, I don't think you even want to understand.

I'm not on a team, Holmes, and I have major differences in what I advocate from both parties. You on the other hand insist you're not a Democrat while only advocating Democrat positions. See the difference? See if you can find anything here that disagrees with Republicans as well as Democrats:

What is a small government libertarian? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[kaz]

No, you're wrong.

The US system costs twice the percentage of GDP as the British system.

The US system sees about 30% go on corruption. Plus you have to add on the profits made by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other middle men who are completely unnecessary, and you're looking at about 45% or 50% just being wasted and not going on health at all, maybe more.

So, the UK govt can provide something for half the price, make it all inclusive at that, and do a better job than the private sector manages in the US.

The US healthcare system is already government controlled from beginning to end. The idea there is anything free market about our healthcare system is just ignorance. So the solution to government generated waste is government taking it over. Yeah....

Well, that's because it's healthcare. The problem is the healthcare system is not separated. It should have private completely separate from public healthcare. If you want private, you pay for it, if not, there are state hospitals. So many people are on the take simply because it's almost impossible to stop the corruption.

Stop the corruption by giving it to government. Keep repeating that, it cracks me up. Wow, what a sheep. You see what you want to see. Governments have destroyed healthcare systems across the world and our government is destroying our healthcare system and Obamacare is making our crappy system far more expensive. Your solution? Give it to government to ... wait for it ... fix it. Wow.

But it's not the govt who is committing the fraud and corruption.

It's also not the govt that is taking a massive profit out of it.

You've failed to even acknowledge that I've written about the profits being made from the system.

Also, you've failed to prove govt corruption in the health system in the first place. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist from the govt, however it'd be far, far less than the corruption in the private system.

You say govts have destroyed healthcare systems across the world. Really? I assume you're going to back up your statement.

In the UK the only one destroying the system are those who want a US style system that allows their friends to get rich.

Exactly.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Yes, government is the solution to all our problems, I now see the error of my ways. Obviously it's your keen insight and observation that makes you recognize that.

My only question is that since you think people are too slow, stupid and corrupt to make our own decisions, have you noticed government is mad up of ... people? Why do you suppose when we join government we are suddenly able to not only function but make decisions over other people's lives?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL, so when I say we have a government controlled monstrosity for a healthcare system, you refute me by blasting the system. Classic. And you didn't address the ridiculous position that you think the solution to a government controlled wasteful, expensive system is for the entity fucking it up, government, to take it over. Can't make it up.

Actually, the solution is to move towards free markets. Obamacare is the completely wrong direction. Health insurance should be like other insurance, it should protect you from catastrophic losses. Rather ObamaCARE moves us towards managed care where people get for free that which they should most pay for themselves, tat which they can afford.

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

Really, as if this is the only scenario that happens in capitalism. Actually what happens is companies get themselves into a position where they don't need to compete with other, by having monopolies and the like, and then do all the corruption they like.

Europe charges Microsoft with abuse of monopoly again

If capitalism is so great, then why did Microsoft get charged with abuse of monoploy. Surely under your "nothing bad happens in capitalism" this wouldn't happen.

The Ten Largest Global Business Corruption Cases

Oh, and these companies didn't engage in corruption either.

In the US you don't even need to "bribe" government officials, you just put money into their super PACs and all that "legitimate nonsense".

Corruption happens all over. People have something to offer, some opportunity, another company wants it, so they'll make sure they get it by flashing the cash and making sure some people get rich out of it.

Without governments, monopolies would be a major, MAJOR part of everyone's lives. There'd probably be only a few controlling everything. With Microsoft they had to try and keep things separate because otherwise no other company would ever stand a chance and Microsoft would control it all, meaning that they wouldn't need to compete.

Being charged with a monopoly doesn't mean you have one.

I've never used a Microsoft product in my life, and I'm doing just fine. I've been an Apple user since the day I first turned a computer on. In fact, Microsoft is only what it is today because they ripped off most of Apples ideas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the late 70's and 80's, I worked in home medical equipment which entailed billing and guidelines for medical equipment.

We used to buy an aluminum walker for let's say $30.00. We would rent that walker to patients on Medicare, Medicaid and even private insurance for $20.00 a month. Some patients would use the walker for a few months, and others would use it for several years.

We weren't doing anything wrong or illegal. We were using the limitations set up by the government. They would rent medical equipment until the day the patient died.

Private insurance on the other hand did things differently. If the prognosis was that the patient needed that equipment for a long time or even life, they would buy that equipment off of us instead of renting it.

In most cases, the equipment we purchased paid for itself in two to four months depending on the equipment. But it wasn't just walkers. We rented: hospital beds, hospital mattresses, portable commodes, oxygen gauges, oxygen concentrators, trapeze's, wheel chairs, wheel chair cushions, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes...

Our company made a killing on government, and when the patient no longer needed the equipment, we just cleaned it up and rented it to another government patient. There were and still are thousands of those companies across the US.

Not doing anything wrong. Well, in the age of legitimate corruption you weren't breaking the law. Doing anything wrong, well.... you were screwing over the system, you were screwing over tax payers. You were an unnecessary cog in a system that didn't need to be there. Who wouldn't try and make money where they can make money? I'm not saying you're a bad person, as you say, the govt set up a bad system that allowed corruption as legitimate business.

In the UK, your business wouldn't exist. The govt would buy this equipment, so wouldn't need to rent it out.

This is the problem. The right say it needs to be private, they make systems which are private, but then many people miss out, so the govt goes in and sets things up to make sure poorer people get private stuff, and that's where the problems lie.

Without medicare and all of that, the UK does fine. It merely has the stuff it needs and gives it to those who need it. It doesn't make huge profits for people who are unnecessary.

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

 

[dcraelin]

Is it crap?

The US Health Care System Is Fundamentally Flawed

"Overall, Americans also pay 50 percent more than other countries for identical drugs, as a result of laws and regulations preventing the US government from reining in drug prices like other nations do"

"While the US makes up only five percent of the world's population, Americans consume over 50 percent of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs"

So, why does it cost you twice as much for drugs as people in other countries? And why do Americans use half of all of those drugs? Are you seriously suggesting that this is good for your wallet?

"A review of US healthcare expenses by the Institutes of Medicine3 (IOM) revealed that 30 cents of every dollar spent on medical care is wasted, adding up to $750 billion annually. For perspective, the defense budget proposed by the Pentagon for 2014 was just under $527 billion."

30 cents of every dollar is WASTED.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"Under the fee-for-service structure, health care providers (doctors, hospitals, specialists, and so on) are trusted to determine the appropriate levels of care, and then trusted to bill the insurer for the services they perform."

"Most significant cases of corruption have involved medical professionals, providers and corporations in the health care delivery supply chain."

MMS: Error

"In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums. "

"Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public and private insurance overhead totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total health care expenditures in the United States, or $259 per capita "

So, 6% of what is spent on healthcare goes to the profit of the insurance companies.

"The average U.S. hospital devoted 24.3 percent of spending to administration. "

So, of the money that makes it to the hospitals, 25% goes on administration, probably a lot of this administration is completely unnecessary and is needed to deal with the insurance companies in the first place.

"Hospital administration consumed $87.6 billion, or $315 per capita (Table 1). In Canada, hospital administration cost $3.1 billion — 12.9 percent of hospital spending, or $103 per capita."

This is THREE TIMES more than is spent in Canada. So we could assume that $60 billion is going on unnecessary administration.

So that's about $460 dollars per capita that goes on unnecessary admin and profit for insurance companies.



There's so much stuff going on, and for some reason, the people who complain the most about things costing too much are the ones who ignore how much more private health costs than public health in other countries.

LOL, so when I say we have a government controlled monstrosity for a healthcare system, you refute me by blasting the system. Classic. And you didn't address the ridiculous position that you think the solution to a government controlled wasteful, expensive system is for the entity fucking it up, government, to take it over. Can't make it up.

Actually, the solution is to move towards free markets. Obamacare is the completely wrong direction. Health insurance should be like other insurance, it should protect you from catastrophic losses. Rather ObamaCARE moves us towards managed care where people get for free that which they should most pay for themselves, tat which they can afford.

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

Really, as if this is the only scenario that happens in capitalism. Actually what happens is companies get themselves into a position where they don't need to compete with other, by having monopolies and the like, and then do all the corruption they like.

Europe charges Microsoft with abuse of monopoly again

If capitalism is so great, then why did Microsoft get charged with abuse of monoploy. Surely under your "nothing bad happens in capitalism" this wouldn't happen.

The Ten Largest Global Business Corruption Cases

Oh, and these companies didn't engage in corruption either.

In the US you don't even need to "bribe" government officials, you just put money into their super PACs and all that "legitimate nonsense".

Corruption happens all over. People have something to offer, some opportunity, another company wants it, so they'll make sure they get it by flashing the cash and making sure some people get rich out of it.

Without governments, monopolies would be a major, MAJOR part of everyone's lives. There'd probably be only a few controlling everything. With Microsoft they had to try and keep things separate because otherwise no other company would ever stand a chance and Microsoft would control it all, meaning that they wouldn't need to compete.

So you only buy the best product at the best price sometimes? You don't always do that? Can you give me some examples of when you don't do that so I know where capitalism doesn't work?

As for monopolies, having the best product for the best price only works as long as you maintain that, once someone builds a better mousetrap you lose that monopoly. Well, except when government enforces monopolies. Only government can use force to make us pick a product which is not the best product at the best price.

Well, not you of course since you don't always pick the best product at the best price, but for the rest of us who do

♪ Happy ever after in the marketplace ♫

no one shops around while riding an ambulance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My only question is that since you think people are too slow, stupid and corrupt to make our own decisions, have you noticed government is mad up of ... people? Why do you suppose when we join government we are suddenly able to not only function but make decisions over other people's lives?

Thomas Jefferson:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Without governments, monopolies would be a major, MAJOR part of everyone's lives. .

1) both sides accept anti trust and have for 100 years so its not an issue.
2) the history of business is that a dominant, not necessarily even a monopoly, company becomes complacent and gets quickly over taken. IBM, Micro-soft, Walmart, RCA, Intel, Sony, Go Pro. etc etc. This is taught in MBA schools so that managers will not fall prey to complacency, but still they mostly do which is why there are few few significant anti trust cases.

Now you understand capitalism a lot better!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My only question is that since you think people are too slow, stupid and corrupt to make our own decisions, have you noticed government is mad up of ... people? Why do you suppose when we join government we are suddenly able to not only function but make decisions over other people's lives?

Thomas Jefferson:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, to expend on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Thomas Jefferson, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

 

[Jarlaxle]

BBAs are ridiculous propaganda.

Newt's passed the House and fell 2 short in Senate. Today debt would be $0 not $20 trillion!! Fiscal responsibility is propaganda to a lib commie traitor studying for his GED

Nonsensical propaganda for big spender, big tax cut for the rich and giant corps PUBS. For dupes only.

Translation: "I cannot refute anything, so I will simply spray explosive diarrhea everywhere."